Finally saw this demonstrated at Focus on Imaging 2011 at the NEC Birmingham today. Apparently a beta version and still expecting release to retail on 4th April 2011.

lots of useful features and usability looks to be much improved over PMP, but not such a dumb/wizard driven interface as i1Match. (I didn't bother to look at the basic interface)

What was particularly interesting was that the X-Rite rep I talked was explaining how much better shadow detail would be with the new profiling engine.Now excuse my cynicism, but does that mean in plain language that previous profiles built by GMB/X-Rite software have got it wrong ? or to put it another way, older profiles had shadows too dark ?It would be somewhat ironic if after all the recent fuss over the 'my prints are too dark' issues the major player in profile creation shifts what it considers as correct shadow detail to a lighter tonal range. Maybe a pragmatic shift to address the imaging community's issues with print/screen matching ? if so I wonder where that leaves the pundits who say that the current systems works fine ?

I'm looking forward to getting my copy and also reading what the experts think about this once they are out of their non-disclosure agreements.

It would be somewhat ironic if after all the recent fuss over the 'my prints are too dark' issues the major player in profile creation shifts what it considers as correct shadow detail to a lighter tonal range.

That’s not the case. And I’d take what this rep said with a grain of salt.

That’s not the case. And I’d take what this rep said with a grain of salt.

Looking at the samples shown of prints made with profiles from different packages, the new one definitely looked to have slightly lighter shadows.

To me this makes a lot of sense; If most people are finding difficulties with shadows too dark, lighten them so that more people find them acceptable. It's just a pragmatic adaptation to the predominant technology.

Yes, I do know the issues and how to resolve them, but if 99% (or more) of users can't get it all(CM) to work well enough maybe a pragmatic shift in attitude/standards is called for. I see this new profiling engine delivering more widely acceptable profiles.

For the record, this change in profile behaviour is slight, to say the least, and most 'my prints are too dark' issues will still need to be resolved by setting appropriate display and viewing luminances rather than just using different profiles.

The question is if the prints were made using a Perceptual rendering intent in which there is no standard method and any profile package can season to taste. And the differences should be subtle, nothing that would account for the prints too dark issue. The engine in i1P IS different and IMHO is superior. But its not something that is going to leap off the page or make you think legacy profiles are “wrong”. In addition, unless the two samples used identical targets and measuring devices, you are now comparing apples and oranges. And i1P’s patch generation is not the same as PMP (its better). That said, you could, with some work, use that target reference in ProfileMaker Pro. So what this fellow told you, and what you saw are so undefined and the product is still being tweaked that basically you can’t take anything to the bank. When the product comes out, and when folks can do actual apples to apples comparisons (correctly), data points can be provided. But in no way are the older profile engines in any way responsible for the dark print issue which is mostly user error in terms of display calibration and/or print viewing conditions.

The engine in i1P IS different and IMHO is superior.......] But in no way are the older profile engines in any way responsible for the dark print issue which is mostly user error in terms of display calibration and/or print viewing conditions.

We're both singing the same song in our last sentences.

I'm just wryly interested in why better shadow separation (ie lighter) is being touted as 'better' if things were all fine and dandy before.

As you say, until we actually get hold of the final product we won't really know how significant, if at all, this issue will be.

Quote

the product is still being tweaked

I very much doubt that the core profiling system of the product is seeing any changes in specification this close to release. It would be a worry if it was. At this stage I would be expecting them only to change the release code if any major compatibility issues have come to light through the RC testing stage, oh, and get the readme right to note any significant issues that can't be put right yet.I would rather be expecting them to be starting to put together the first update package as less serious issues are revealed and resolved.

Better shadow details does not mean shadows are lighter. It means more contrast is preserved in shadows, mostly. There is no way one can bend print contrast ratio being less than 1:250, mostly 1:180 or lower. So if your black point on the monitor is set to 0.5 cd/m^2 your white point is going to be 250 times higher to reach the same contrast range. Means 125 cd/m^2 max.

I don’t see why. The final product and its capabilities is all anyone should be concerned with.

Just when will the product becomes final is what worries me. If they're still messing around with the core functions very close to release it may take several bug fix updates to get it to a state that can be considered a "final" product. It's no fun buying expensive software that doesn't deliver the expected performance and the end users end up being unpaid beta testers.

The final product and its capabilities is all anyone should be concerned with.

Yes, but, the number of delays give the impression that there are major problems yet to be resolved. That said, I would rather wait for the finished working product than be frustrated with buggy software and frequent updates. I do plan to upgrade when it is ready for prime time.

But in no way are the older profile engines in any way responsible for the dark print issue which is mostly user error in terms of display calibration and/or print viewing conditions.

The first part of that sentence I agree with. The second part is pure Andrew Rodney. I suggest we rewrite the sentence as:

"But in no way are the older print profile engines in any way responsible for the dark print issue which is mostly programming error in terms of application print code, in the operating system print code, bit rot, or the lack of provision of a clear workflow for the creation of profiling targets; user error or faulty display profiles are sometimes contributory, as is the user pressing the big red 'Hurt Me!' Button called printer settings. Changing your display profiling software may help."

Note that I don't completely disagree with Andrew, I just think that some dilution is appropriate

This impression is based on your experience releasing software (software for building color profiles)? As Bobby would say, don’t worry, be happy.

Look at the iteration of Argyll; every version seems to have a new rendering and new rendering bugs.

Actually, I quite like the old Monaco Profiler, I wish they just wrapped the new interface around that and released it as an i1 product, with any additional stuff accruing later as an update. The removal of Profile Maker Pro RGB renderings from the new i1 software I would consider as a major improvement